Views
5 years ago

The Global Effort to Eradicate Rinderpest - International Food Policy ...

The Global Effort to Eradicate Rinderpest - International Food Policy ...

to deal

to deal with today. Some countries are becoming disinterested in maintaining their free status and the small number remaining unaccredited are proving increasingly difficult to engage in the accreditation process. How this will be resolved is unclear. Figure 6. Current (May 2009) status of OIE accreditation of rinderpest freedom Note: Countries accredited as free are colored green; some of the remaining countries are in the pipeline. Source: OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health). 28

8. IMPACT OF RINDERPEST ERADICATION Overview of Previous Economic Impact Studies on Rinderpest Despite the significant success in the global effort to eradicate rinderpest, surprisingly little information quantifying the scope of these efforts exists, particularly on a global basis. The majority of information that is available tends to be either piecemeal or case-specific, referring to specific outbreaks or control programs. A further weakness in the available information on the economic impacts is that there is a disproportionate amount of information on Africa, despite the fact that parts of Asia (particularly Pakistan, Iran, and India) previously faced significant problems with the disease. A final problem is a matter of data: livestock production data are notoriously unreliable at the national level, while the attribution of production impacts independent of disease-control interventions are problematic at best. The most comprehensive study on the economic impact of rinderpest was conducted by Tambi et al. (1999) in their evaluation of the PARC. As noted earlier in the paper, the PARC program was implemented in 20 countries in West Africa and 7 countries in East Africa and combined emergency action to control existing outbreaks with a program intended to strengthen veterinary services in the expectation that this would lead to rinderpest eradication. Included within this program was a phased vaccination and surveillance program that aimed to eradicate remaining pockets of the disease. The program began in 1986 in an emergency guise and over the next dozen years was rolled out to gradually control the disease in target countries. Tambi et al. (1999) report total donor funding of the nonemergency phase of the program (198899) at 57.5 million ECU (European Currency Units). The program was extremely successful in West Africa, where it built on national rinderpest control programs supported by the FAO in the wake of the second great African rinderpest pandemic, with the last reported outbreak in 1988, while success in eastern Africa was slower. The analysis in Tambi et al. (1999) examined the cost-effectiveness of the PARC program in a subset of 10 recipient countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. The total cost of the PARC program in these 10 countries was estimated at 51.6 million ECU, which included both donor funding and national matching funds. Approximately 123 million cattle were vaccinated, implying an average cost per animal of 0.42 ECU in the 10 regions, though this ranged from 0.27 ECU per animal in Ethiopia to 1.71 ECU per animal in Cote d’Ivoire (Tambi et al. 1999). Leslie and McLeod (2001) estimate that vaccination costs in the PARC program ranged from 5 to 33 percent of the total costs of the program, based on a per unit vaccination cost of US$0.09. Tambi et al. (1999) subsequently analyzed the costs of the PARC program compared to the benefit derived from it. Their focus was on “avoided losses” generated from the PARC program in terms of the program’s influence on improved production in beef, milk, and manure, and services from animal traction. They estimated that the program resulted in avoided losses of 126,000 tons of beef, 39,000 tons of milk, 14,000 tons of manure, and 86,000 hectares of animal traction. It is not completely clear in the study how these benefits were derived. Moreover, the paper seems to only focus on the direct benefits of disease control, omitting important second-round impacts on international trade and other parts of the economy. Thus, it is likely that the benefits attributable to the PARC are understated in their analysis. The total value of these avoided losses was estimated at 99.2 million ECU, implying a benefit– cost ratio (BCR) of the program of 1.85 (Tambi et al. 1999). Country-specific benefits ranged from a high of 35.4 million ECU in Ethiopia to a low of 0.5 million ECU in Benin, while BCRs in all 10 study countries were greater than 1 (ranging from a high of 3.84 in Tanzania to a low of 1.06 in Côte d’Ivoire). The authors further computed internal rates of return (IRRs) based on the benefit–cost ratios for selected countries, which ranged from 11 percent for Cote d’Ivoire and 118 percent in Burkina Faso, suggesting that the return to investment from the PARC was high relative to alternative uses. The Tambi et al. (1999) study finally attempted to assess welfare measures from the PARC program based on economic surplus measures (in other words, producer and consumer surplus). The rationale is that the PARC program would lead to a shift in the supply curve for livestock (and products), 29

2009 Global Hunger Index - International Food Policy Research ...
Global Hunger Index - International Food Policy Research Institute
Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020 - International Food Policy ...
Global Eradication of Infectious Diseases - Alape
International efforts for policies on Shipping Emissions - EFCA
International Agricultural Research for Food Security, Poverty ...
View - International Livestock Research Institute
Eight Years of Doha Trade Talks - International Food Policy ...
3rd Summer Academy on Global Food Law & Policy 25-29 July 2011
Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing? - International Food Policy ...
Food Irradiation: A Global Food Safety Tool - International Food ...
[+]The best book of the month International Human Resource Management: Policies and Practices for Multinational Enterprises (Global HRM) [NEWS]
4th Summer Academy on Global Food Law & Policy 23-27 July 2012
More Aid for African Agriculture: policy options for ... - UK Food Group
the global crisis and korea's international financial policies
About For Books International Human Resource Management: Policies and Practices for Multinational Enterprises (Global HRM) Unlimited
About For Books International Human Resource Management: Policies and Practices for Multinational Enterprises (Global HRM) Unlimited
References and Bibliography - International Food Policy Research ...
Economic Transformation in Ghana - International Food Policy ...
FMD Hemispheric eradication efforts - Caribvet
MAXIMO TORERO, Ph.D. - International Food Policy Research ...
The Challenge of Hunger - International Food Policy Research ...
Ending Hunger in Africa - International Food Policy Research Institute
From the Ground Up: Impacts of Pro - International Food Policy ...
Re-Greening the Sahel - International Food Policy Research Institute
In Pursuit of Votes - International Food Policy Research Institute
publications - International Food Policy Research Institute
Rich Food for Poor People - International Food Policy Research ...
Agriculture - International Food Policy Research Institute
Appendix 2 - International Food Policy Research Institute